Whales are mammals,so ofcoarse they would'nt have gills,but you also have'nt realized that some fish will drown because they need to gulp air to breath (e.g. Arapaima,lungfish).I hardly doubt if they have an evolutionary origin from any land based creature.

I've also heard of a lungfish with a moveable neck that is able to lift it's head out of the water to gulp air like Tiktaalik.

Does The Theory of Creation have a parallel explanation, with evidence?

They have lungs because they are MAMMALS. Not because they evolved from land mammals. I have a National Geographic that explains that some antelope type creatures were the ancestors of whales... dropping the wolf-like creature all together. Of course the evolutionist magicians are very quick to switch ancestors over and over... as they see fit.

So antelopes magically started eating plankton and growing fins??? Hmmm most antelopes and grass grazers live in parched climates nowhere near the ocean.

Plus no land dwelling mammal has Mouth FILTERS or BLOW HOLES. Which also poses a problem for the evolution magicians. Blubber would also need a nice explaination too. Plus the entire BODY of the whale is purposfully designed for water navigation. From sonar location... all the way to grooves on the belly of the whale for faster traveling through the ocean. In fact many ocean dwelling mammals are far more advanced than fish.

At no point does the fossil record actually record the evolution of Whales. Giving more evidence that evolution really is a wishful thinking fairytale.

So sea dwelling mammals having lungs is not a good excuse for a major problem, when in fact it's no problem at all. Nor is there any evidence for it being a problem in the first place.

The fossil record is discussed at length in the talkorigins link. Have a look, and please come back with any queries.

Anyway, I was asking a question about the Theory of Creationism. Is there an answer?

Hi JMcP,

Welcome to EFT.

I would strongly recommend using the search feature to review the past threads pertaining to this topic. Until you feel comfortable navigating our forum I would be pleased to provide a couple of pertinent threads dealing with this subject.

I would strongly recommend using the search feature to review the past threads pertaining to this topic. Until you feel comfortable navigating our forum I would be pleased to provide a couple of pertinent threads dealing with this subject.

Since we can't observe the future, we can't back up a comment like that one. Whales might evolve in the future, or go extinct.

A silly standard you probably don't employ elsewhere. Since you can't observe the future, do you abandon all knowledge? When you posted, you couldn't observe the future, yet you trusted people would still be able to read English.

A silly standard you probably don't employ elsewhere. Since you can't observe the future, do you abandon all knowledge? When you posted, you couldn't observe the future, yet you trusted people would still be able to read English.

Well, in the example you give, of course not. But since we already know that the whale has evolved from land mammals over the course of millions of years, then it is silly to assume that it will not continue to evolve in the future, if it doesn't go extinct first.

To say that we don't observe any change in the whale in the very short timespan of a human lifetime, is to state the obvious. No-one would expect to see any observable change.

Well, in the example you give, of course not. But since we already know that the whale has evolved from land mammals over the course of millions of years, then it is silly to assume that it will not continue to evolve in the future, if it doesn't go extinct first.

To say that we don't observe any change in the whale in the very short timespan of a human lifetime, is to state the obvious. No-one would expect to see any observable change.

In no example will you apply the standard you used. None! Unless you have occasion to trump up a bogus objection, that is.

Thanks for the gratuitous "we already know" propaganda. Threads are here aplenty any time you're ready do demonstrate any of your "knowledge". Spouting hype rather than presenting even any mock justification for the standard conveys more than you suspect about the validity thereof.

Lest you bank on folks forgetting, here it is again

Since we can't observe the future, we can't back up a comment like that one. Whales might evolve in the future, or go extinct.

Thanks for the gratuitous "we already know" propaganda. Threads are here aplenty any time you're ready do demonstrate any of your "knowledge". Spouting hype rather than presenting even any mock justification for the standard conveys more than you suspect about the validity thereof.

You seem angry.

Spouting's a great word in the context of whales. What aspect of the multiple lines of evidence supporting whale evolution do you dispute?

And do you have any alternative evidence other than "it says so in the Bible"?

Might Shmight. We're talking about observational science. I gave you some. It's not my fault that you reject reality for the fantasy of evolution, then add insult to injury by calling it scientific.

You are not talking about observational science, all you are doing is saying whales haven't changed much recently, therefore they can't possibly have changed in the past, despite all the evidence that they have changed.

You are not talking about observational science, all you are doing is saying whales haven't changed much recently, therefore they can't possibly have changed in the past, despite all the evidence that they have changed.

Define what type of change you're talking about and what is your evidence?

You are not talking about observational science, all you are doing is saying whales haven't changed much recently, therefore they can't possibly have changed in the past, despite all the evidence that they have changed.

Well the Evolution of whales is not observable nor are the transitionals. Especially when there aren't any transitionals within whale evolution.